Thai opinion: Absolutely democracy can be absolutely unacceptable

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Absolutely democracy can be absolutely unacceptable

BANGKOK: -- This article - the third time I'm discussing the idea of "ultimate democracy" in this space - is inspired by the sincerest enthusiasm shown toward it by an unmistakable fan of Thaksin Shinawatra. "I think we should give it a try," he said. But when I told him I doubted the idea would ever be picked up by those tasked with reforming Thailand, he sighed and nodded.

Our conversation took place last week and began, like countless others, with both of us wondering when we were going to see light at the end of the tunnel for Thailand. He surprised me by saying he did not dislike Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and thought he was kind of funny. However, he did not believe a Prayut-led reform would succeed, because "if the beginning is wrong, the ending can't be right".

I told him he could be right, but only if by "the beginning" he meant democracy. For me, at least, the much-cherished principle has morphed into a "winner takes all" game, giving one election result too much importance - and that's what's wrong. When we empower the prime minister to pick the entire Cabinet, we give him or her too much and too unrealistic responsibility. It makes all political entities and virtually everyone gear up for one thing and one thing only - a general election victory. That may work in other countries, but here the prime minister can end up as a kind of dictator, sending a highly superstitious person to lead the Science Ministry (for instance) and we can do absolutely nothing about it.

How about we vote to elect, say, the finance, education, ICT, health, or agriculture minister? How "undemocratic" would that be? One man with many votes is more democratic in my book. It empowers the people on the streets even more. Instead of picking only the prime minister (through giving his or her party an election victory) and trusting him or her to pick the rest of the management team, we could vote to pick each of the team members. More power to us all.

This is where the eyes of my conversation partner narrowed. "Do you mean we can have a Democrat education minister, a Chart Thai agriculture minister and Newin Chidchob or Suwat Liptapanlop as sports minister, all working under a Pheu Thai prime minister?" he asked, being polite enough to exclaim "What a mess that would be!"

It would, at the beginning at least, look a bit like a kindergarten classroom, I concurred. But hey, we scraped through a great flood disaster with the government and the Bangkok governor coming from different parties. And while we can add or fine-tune measures to deal with the negatives, let's look at the positives, which I think are abundant.

We can replace a bad agriculture minister with someone we think is better, and we can do that without letting his silly farm subsidy scheme wreak havoc on the entire government. We'll kiss goodbye to the bad old days when we could only grit our teeth as a textbook nepotism practitioner took the helm of the Justice Ministry. Ministers will work to please the people, not party bosses. In fact, the people will truly become the ministers' bosses.

This is not saying political nominees will become extinct, but there certainly will be fewer of them and the spotlight on those who remain will be a lot more glaring. I'm not saying political parties will stop trying everything at all costs to control the energy sector, but at least we will have a say on who will become the energy minister, and his or her vision on existing oil exploration concessions, for example, will get deserved attention.

Most important of all, democracy will stop being a winner-takes-all game. It will start being about finding great qualities and good public servants for all aspects of national administration, as it's supposed to be. We will have the right people in the right jobs, not a government with great healthcare visions but poor fiscal expertise.

How many elections will that need and how often will we need them? Well, democracy is neither cheap nor simple. How much does an election cost? Bt1 billion? Bt5 billion? We've lost more on countless fiascos. And who says democracy is just a once-every-four-year exercise?

My conversation partner was finally convinced. "Now I get what you mean," he said. "The Thai government will become like Real Madrid, right? You know, with the greatest players in every position of the field." Exactly, I told him. The best part is, if we do it right, we won't have to fire the coach every two years.

We both knew it was just wishful thinking, though. At best, Thailand's "reform" blueprint will oblige political parties to name potential ministers going into the election campaign. That will be proclaimed as being as democratic as it can get. And it won't be surprising if vocal opposition to anything more "ultimate" comes from pro-democracy people themselves. Absolute democracy, after all, can be absolutely unacceptable.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Absolutely-democracy-can-be-absolutely-unacceptabl-30249439.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-10

[benalibina]

Is Real Madrid free of debts ?

[NeverSure]

I agree with the guy. The type of democracy which, as he said, is winner take all doesn't work for the best of the people. One party in essence becomes a dictator and just as bad, is loyal to just one group - call it shirt color if you wish.

The government should at some levels be at odds with itself to force debate, and each branch should answer only to the people and not the one winner of an election. Sometimes that seems clumsy and sometimes people in government can become obstructionist, but that can be better than getting anything done that the leader wishes. Sometimes it is good to stop things from happening such as a rice scheme or some privileged amnesty.

If Thailand winds up with an elected PM choosing the parliament, it will be no better than a dictatorship. Each province should choose its own representatives to parliament and each city and town and village should choose its own leaders.

There isn't harmony in the leadership of Australia or Canada or the UK or the US but they aren't on the verge of political collapse every few years, either. They have to work together the best they can, when they can.

[MrJohnson]

The electoral process is but one part of a larger mosaic of issues which must be addressed if the country is to move forward. These include, but are not confined to:

A civil service appointments system that is transparent and based on meritocracy rather than nepotism

A truly independent judiciary.

Broad law enforcement with adequate due process free of corruption

Harsh penalties for corrupt practices

A truly free press

To be honest I cannot see any one of these happening here, let alone all of them, in the future. Simply a re-arrangement of the deck chairs and different people in charge of the toy box.

[Thai at Heart]

Until they get an unbiased , independent judiciary, its a rather irrelevant.

All wrongdoing needs punishment not one side or other.

[Roadman]

What is amusing is the Thaksin fan in their quest for the "ultimate democracy" can only see the beginning as when General Prayuth throw out his hero's proxy. Perhaps if they were to open their mind past that to all the previous failed coups (apart from that very first successful coup that was the true beginning and gave the first flicker of that tunnel of democratic light), and all the failed so called democratic governments from all politicial parties to date, then the focus can become the corrupt lawless system that Thailand has always had rather than any of the individual power groups trying to score gains over the other. That then allows a broader consideration of the solutions to be explored such as this which does have some merit.

[noitom]

Preposterous Thai dribble that fails to articulate the most fundamental truths about Thailand and the way Thais posture.

[chainarong]

The real problem is not democracy but the people , their mindset is a little world in which a bubble rotates , anything that looks like democracy is questioned as not Thai and we do it our way , Thai democracy , well I suppose if you must have democracy that will have to do , but having Coups every five years , is that really going to help Thai democracy , to outlaw Coups would mean diminishing the power base of the military, for obvious reasons that won't happen.

[BudRight]

This guy absolutely positively needs to cool it on the superlatives.

Edited December 10, 2014 by BudRight

[worgeordie]

What needs to happen is that people in power need to put

the country and its people BEFORE their own self interests,

or their party,problem is that this will never happen as its not

human interest (for politicians) at least to think this way,so

you will only ever get a watered down version of democracy,

even countries in the West who spout democracy,they are

far from perfect.

regards Worgeordie

[maidee]

get rid of corruption , croocked policemen & politicians

than let's give democracy a try

i guess: when pigs can fly

[frimu]

Before a democracy can work rule of law needs to be established.

As long as a small farmer with legitimate rights for a piece of land can't win against someone with more money, rule of law does not exist.

Just one of many examples.

[Chris Lawrence]

Justification article for what they want to do.

Politics is clouded with class distinctions and the elites of society. If you are not in these groups, one would be undeserving to run for the Thai parliament.

So, not sure if Thailand has ever had a grassroots commoner elected.

I think what they need to focus on is a fair and equitable distribution of wealth. The majority of GDP is spent on Bangkok; whilst under coups spending on military increases dramatically.

The talk on democracy is a bit of a fast? What would they achieve if they had a fairer form of democracy, maybe what they should be focusing on?

[reptile91602]

You also can never have a working democracy without educating the people first. Look how bad it works in the US and at least some of them have an education.

[whybother]

One huge flaw in this idea. Budgets.

The party that wins the election can decide where the budget gets allocated. If they don't control the particular ministry, then the ministry won't get much in the budget.

Then there will be the fighting about which ministry has oversight over issues. That already happens even with one party in "control".

Overall, a ridiculous idea.

[angiolo]

One day it will be RED against YELLOW and no working together for the common good . How to steal while in power is prime objective . I love Thailand and feel sorry for the people in general. |They deserve better

[Orac]

If the Thai government was to use a 'Real Madrid' model they would end up with a couple of cricketers as forwards and Venessa Mae in goal.

What is missing in Thai politics is any clear ideologies that people can be unified around and it is instead based on personalities, feudal loyalties and greed of the individuals involved. The idea of voting for individual ministers will only reinforce this and lead to a cabinet that is full of people competing with each other as opposed to one pulling together with a common purpose.

[NeverSure]

You also can never have a working democracy without educating the people first. Look how bad it works in the US and at least some of them have an education.

Speaking of education (for you,) the US isn't a democracy.

It's system has worked very well from its beginning because there are three independent branches of government. There are 50 states and each state, regardless of population, gets 2 senators for a total of 100 senators in the Senate. The big states can't walk on the small states. It isn't majority rule.

The Supreme Court is an independent branch of government, and their rulings become law. They are nominated by the president, ratified by the non-democratic Senate, and then they serve for life. A life term frees them from the pressure of politics and sometimes they surprise people by how they vote.

As we just saw in the recent elections, the president has no say as to who is in Congress. He just got his butt handed to him by having his party go down in a big defeat. But this is good because it would stop him from trying to be a ruler rather than a representative of the people.

And so it goes with Congress making a law but the president having to sign it unless Congress can get enough votes to override the president. There are all of these checks and balances with some significant vote by the people every two years so that changes can be made as they just were.

With this system there is no need for a coup. The people just pulled off a coup by running the democrats into the minority by a good margin.

[reptile91602]

There is a big need for a coup in the US. What a improvement that would be over Bushes and Obamas. Of course I wouldn't want to live through it anymore than I want to live through what has become of the US. So I got out.

[Robby nz]

The position of minister needs to be considered as a top job rather than a political position, like the CEO of a company.

Applications should be called for from qualified people from both inside and out of politics with them being required to submit their qualifications, CV if you like and their vision for the direction of the ministry they apply for the position of minister of.

Applications would be for only one ministry with qualifications in that field, vision and management ability taken into account.

After the applications details have been checked by a body set up for the purpose then a list of applicants for each ministry is put on a ballot paper with their details, this then goes to the people at a general election.

The ministers would be responsible for carrying out the policies of the Govt in power and would be answerable to the Govt while being in charge of management of their respective ministries.

As this is an untried concept there would be a lot of details to sort out, one as someone pointed out being budgets, but if they are keeping to the Govt's policies this should not be a problem.

There should however be some system of evaluation such as a mid term scorecard, and a means of removing a bad minister within the term of office.

There should be no limit to how long a minister can serve but they will all come up for reelection (if the apply) and are doing a good job and get elected again.

Yes I know it sounds just like another top civil servant but would be more than that, indeed a link between the civil service and Govt who was answerable directly to the people (electorate).

[whybother]

The position of minister needs to be considered as a top job rather than a political position, like the CEO of a company.

Applications should be called for from qualified people from both inside and out of politics with them being required to submit their qualifications, CV if you like and their vision for the direction of the ministry they apply for the position of minister of.

Applications would be for only one ministry with qualifications in that field, vision and management ability taken into account.

After the applications details have been checked by a body set up for the purpose then a list of applicants for each ministry is put on a ballot paper with their details, this then goes to the people at a general election.

The ministers would be responsible for carrying out the policies of the Govt in power and would be answerable to the Govt while being in charge of management of their respective ministries.

As this is an untried concept there would be a lot of details to sort out, one as someone pointed out being budgets, but if they are keeping to the Govt's policies this should not be a problem.

There should however be some system of evaluation such as a mid term scorecard, and a means of removing a bad minister within the term of office.

There should be no limit to how long a minister can serve but they will all come up for reelection (if the apply) and are doing a good job and get elected again.

Yes I know it sounds just like another top civil servant but would be more than that, indeed a link between the civil service and Govt who was answerable directly to the people (electorate).

What about the permanent secretaries? Do they just get sidelined?

[blundaman]

One huge flaw in this idea. Budgets.

The party that wins the election can decide where the budget gets allocated. If they don't control the particular ministry, then the ministry won't get much in the budget.

Then there will be the fighting about which ministry has oversight over issues. That already happens even with one party in "control".

Overall, a ridiculous idea.

Budgets? bud-gets?!? ... we don't need no stonkin' budgets!!

[lil fluffy clouds]

The countries themselves may not appear to be on the verge of collapse in relativity, but the world is....

Better to go feral and quit all this intellectual nonsense....

[ggt]

I do not believe there is a perfectly acceptable absolute democracy model to use as a basis of re-forming a modern Thai democracy...

Best one can hope for is to get a general consensus to the Thai model...attempt to put it in motion...and hope the political division in this country does not immediately plot against the elected officials and gives them time to prove their worth to the country...

The military stepping in when it did was a necessary evil as the country was on the verge of a potential blood bath in many areas where people were armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight...

Give the process of forming a democracy in Thailand a chance...it can work if there is something positive for Thais to look forward to...setting aside person interest and unlawful gain...

[cocopops]

In every democracy on earth any party or coalition that wins a stable majority implements its agenda. The one they took to the people to win that majority. When they don't do it, it's called "breaking their election promises".

It's simply ridiculous to pretend that Thailand is somehow different in this regard.

It's also good to know that even the poor stupid kwai-dairngs can see the superiority of the new proposals once it has been presented as a football analogy.... Patronizing jerk...

Edited December 10, 2014 by cocopops

[wwest5829]

I agree with the guy. The type of democracy which, as he said, is winner take all doesn't work for the best of the people. One party in essence becomes a dictator and just as bad, is loyal to just one group - call it shirt color if you wish.

The government should at some levels be at odds with itself to force debate, and each branch should answer only to the people and not the one winner of an election. Sometimes that seems clumsy and sometimes people in government can become obstructionist, but that can be better than getting anything done that the leader wishes. Sometimes it is good to stop things from happening such as a rice scheme or some privileged amnesty.

If Thailand winds up with an elected PM choosing the parliament, it will be no better than a dictatorship. Each province should choose its own representatives to parliament and each city and town and village should choose its own leaders.

There isn't harmony in the leadership of Australia or Canada or the UK or the US but they aren't on the verge of political collapse every few years, either. They have to work together the best they can, when they can.

I agree in principle but ours doesn't seem to be "working together" right now....unfortunately.

[Krataiboy]

". . . but here the prime minister can end up as a kind of dictator, sending a highly superstitious person to lead the Science Ministry (for instance) and we can do absolutely nothing about it".

By "highly suspicious", do you think this odd cove means somebody, for example, who consults an astrologer or fortune teller before making important decisions?

Sounds like defamation to me. And of somebody you really can't afford to mess with.

[Thai at Heart]

". . . but here the prime minister can end up as a kind of dictator, sending a highly superstitious person to lead the Science Ministry (for instance) and we can do absolutely nothing about it".

By "highly suspicious", do you think this odd cove means somebody, for example, who consults an astrologer or fortune teller before making important decisions?

Sounds like defamation to me. And of somebody you really can't afford to mess with.

It isn't 100% necessary for an individual minister to be extremely competent at a ministry.

He shouldnt be given carte Blanche to decide anything that represents significant change. Things like this should go to parliamentary committee and a debate .

Unfortunately it seems Thai MPs don't get the point of debate and prefer just to pass laws.

[TPI]

Preposterous Thai dribble that fails to articulate the most fundamental truths about Thailand and the way Thais posture.

what a troll!

[rickirs]

"The Thai government will become like Real Madrid, right? You know, with the greatest players in every position of the field."

Yeah, except it would be the OWNERS of the team that makes all final decisions, kind of like the Thai military.